Essay by a self-proclaimed "Redneck Marxist". Regardless of your politics, I guarantee you'll find a couple of paragraphs that you agree with wholeheartedly in here, and a few that will make you very uncomfortable.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2006/01/r ... _the_.html

Some excerpts:

I'm going to need to go over this again, very interesting

He's not saying anything new, but that's the first time I've heard two arguments like that brought to bear since I studied Hitler.

Interesting comparison Stuzzo, I didn't draw the comparison to this being Hitler-esque, but I'll have to re-read it and see if I see where you are making that conclusion. Upon my first read through of only the points PD quoted, I pretty much agreed with everything the guy was saying. Its not prettied up, and in places is perhaps crudely presented, but the points he makes are all pretty valid.

It's funny you say that. It is kind of a "national socialist" way of thinking, in the literal meanings of those words.

Here's how I see it, from the perspective of one of those liberal northeastern elitist Jews. The author is right that there exists a large un(der)educated segment of society in the heartland of America that is white, Christian, and just as undervalued and economically oppressed as any other “minority group” in the country. I disagree that this group represents as large a population percentage as he wishes to believe (maybe somewhere around 40-50%, not 70% as he claims).

I also disagree that the “Scotch-Irish mutt-people” he describes are a distinct and diverse ethnic group that is targeted against by the elite in this country. For example, I’m a mix of Russian Jew, German, English, Irish, and God knows what else in my past, but unless I tell people that I’m a Jew (an ACTUAL targeted minority), then people just treat me like I’m “white”, because that’s what I look like. An EDUCATED white person, and one with enough “class” to move inconspicuously in most circles regardless of whether I actually belong there or not.

You see, I believe that in America, class is MUCH more a function of education, and your family’s history of education, than it is of ethnicity or wealth or any other factor, especially within the set of “white people”. For example, your class will be determined by how many generations of a certain level of education have been attained by your ancestors. On that note, I have difficulty believing that 1/3 of the graduates of Harvard are Jewish, especially considering that only about 2% of Americans are Jewish. I have no doubt that there is a disproportionate percentage of Jews at institutions of higher education in this country, but that is simply because education has always been very highly valued in Jewish culture for hundreds upon hundreds of years. The same can be said about East Asian cultures, especially Japan and the China. As the author himself said, “this stubborn proud people does not whine beg or threaten its way to access to education, employment or anything else.” Well, that’s why they’re going to stay poor and ignorant. “Stubborn and proud” are two virtues that I’ve never had a whole lot of respect for. You can add “loyal” to that list as well.

But where the author is dead right is that these people are desperately in need of real education if they are going to ever have any chance at rising out of their situation. That can be said of all underprivileged people in America of all racial and ethnic groups.

Now, is an excellent education for all Americans going to lift everyone out of poverty and menial labor? No, it’s not. Just as having a high school education was the key to a better life for our grandparents, and a college education the key for our parents, a high school education became an absolute minimum to sustain for our parents, and a college education has become the same for our generation. If everyone had a college education, it would be as meaningless for getting ahead as a high school education is today. BUT, at least the poor and economically depressed would be educated enough to not “be suckered by political and religious hucksters. If not, then we must accept that uneducated people interpret politics in an uninformed and emotional manner, and accept the consequences.”

So here’s the left-winger in me speaking. Liberals DO want great improvements in universal education across the country, not so that people can rise above their economic lot in life, but so that when they remain in poverty, they will be educated enough to recognize that by aligning themselves politically with the wealthiest of the business class, they are shooting themselves in the foot. They will be educated enough to not be bamboozled by religious fundamentalists and will instead search for the answer to the problems in their lives in this world, not the next one. The liberal elite may not really want these people to rise up, but intentionally or not, the tools which education would provide them may actually enable them to do so. The conservative elite in this country crassly caters to the lowest animal instinct in the uneducated in order to win their political support, but actually works in a concerted effort to keep these people right where they are in their underclass status, because it benefits the elite to do that. There’s no real “good guys” in the upper echelons of the power structure, but there are some very clear “bad guys”, and they’re the George Bushes of the world, who are patricians deeply ensconced in power elite, but pretend to be regular good ol’ boys from the ranch in order to court votes.

At least FDR and Kennedy never tried to pretend they were one of the regular folk. FDR was thoroughly above them in every way, and he made it no secret that he felt that way, but there is almost no politician in the history of our country who did more to give opportunity to the poor, especially the poor whites, than he did. I don’t know why it is considered “elitist” in this country to want to have a man who is your “better” be your leader. I don’t want some regular guy running things, I want the smartest, most educated, and otherwise best person our country can offer.

<rant off>

I had to look up ensconced, as I don't recall ever coming across it, tis a good word there. Anyways, I agree, well possibly, I'm still mulling over this idea in my head, but I can see how education can be a type of barometer for the culture and/or class you are instead of the persons ethnicity. That is for the majority of people, I think you always have a small cadre of nationalistic narrow minded individuals no matter how educated they become, of course that's the cynic in me speaking.

Getting an educated and earning a bachelor's degree from a university are two separate things, in my opinion. I know a lot of people that went through the four years of college but didn't really become educated.

Being educated means you know how to learn. You can teach yourself and understand how the world has worked in the past and is working in the present.

I am the first person in my family to earn a college degree, but my father is a lot more educated than I am because of all of the reading he does. He never stops learning.

True, I know a fair amount of idiots with degrees

"So we will either see that Americans, religious or not, get educated equally so they won’t be suckered by political and religious hucksters. If not, then we must accept that uneducated people interpret politics in an uninformed and emotional manner, and accept the consequences."

People educated or not still get "suckered by political and religious hucksters."
And usually if you're not being "suckered" you're the "huckster"
I don't know maybe I'm being overly cynical. But of late I've seen a lot of well educated people drinking the cool-aid.

I'd say I'm in full agreement with this.

As stuzzo already elated to, there really isn’t nothing new here. I disagree with you David, when you say that everyone would find something wrong with what he’s saying. Quite the contrary, I doubt that there is anyone that would disagree with what he says, and that’s because he’s just spelling out the way things are, and not offering solutions to these problems. I think it’s obvious that you, and I, and many others like Ampson will find common ground in agreeing with the original essay. The essay is all about bettering humanity and society, and all of us want to do that, and we all cognitively recognize underlying problems, but we differ in how we look to forward society. And that’s where we digress.

First, before I contrast how you think David, and how I think, I wanna talk about the first quotes about the Army. I won’t necessarily disagree. But, he needs to realize that a lot of the people in the military are there purely out of there own accord. But there are people in it for the buck, and for that, I disagree with the military and some of the people in it. It’s why I joined the Marine Corp. I believe that you should join the military to serve your people and for no other reason. You shouldn’t join because it has a lot of perks and a lot of shit you can get out of it. You should join to serve. I think all these bonuses and whatnot really detracts from the military, because you end up getting people within it that don’t really want to serve, they just want money.



This is elitist scummery at its finest. You are right on one issue. Educated liberals, such as yourself and members of this board, do want people to be educated better. Although, I tend to think that most liberals are all for education for the same reason that many conservatives are, and that is so that they generally improve the condition of their life. Its proper use is to enable citizens to live responsible lives that create and enhance their democratic culture. Bingo. The sentence I’ve been looking for for years.

I still have the utmost contempt for your idea that poor people are just gonna be poor, so they might as well deal with it mentality. That is a very dangerous attitude to put forth into the minds of millions of people. It discourages advancement, and creates an attitude that you find in many lower class communities and even here in the young male population of Djibouti, “well, so far as I can see, there’s no way out. PunkDavid said so.” At that point, what does education become? Why does it matter when people are told by someone above them…like a Jewish lawyer, that they are destined to become nothing more than cogs in this circus wheel? That stymies production, it stymies ingenuity, it hinders progress that may lift many more people into middle-classdom, or even upper-classdom. What this idea will foster, is a lack of people to be there best. What kind of life is that? To be poor, but educated, under the impression that you shouldn’t align yourself with the business class and remain free from religion. That’s not liberalism. That’s pure confinement and a life not worth living so far as I’m concerned.

And ya know what…I don’t think that’s liberal or conservative. It’s not even human.

Let me ask you. In this life, where do the answer’s to the poor people lie David? Your solution. What’s their place in life? Why do you see them as such a lost cause and I dare say…helpless.

Aligning oneself with the wealthiest business people, in my opinion, is a way to become a wealthy business person yourself. If that is what you aspire to be that is, as everyone has different aspirations and hopes in life. In every job that I have ever had, except the Marine Corp, I have always tried to position myself in such a manner so that I could learn from the bosses, or the people who did the best job. It’s been my experience that business managers are typically more than willing to teach and to share with those willing to learn. I haven’t found these to be the most kosher of people, but sometimes you gotta sleep with the enemy to forward yourself. And I suppose that may be one reason why I was making about twice the hourly wage as my counterparts in college, and living comfortably.



This is myth, and touted often by liberal elites. I’m a conservative, and I sure as hell do not want to keep people right where they are in any way shape or form and neither do any other conservatives. Particularly rich conservative business owners. There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to anybody, whether they be liberal (unless you are a liberal politician), conservative, rich or poor, in keeping people uneducated. Why would they do this? What’s the motivation? To say they are richer and more powerful than the minions of society? I’m sorry, but wealth grows exponentially, and these people are typically not content to sit idly by and not make MORE money. The wealthy will became wealthier only if the lower classes too progress. In other words, there is more money, and percievably more power to be had if the lower class forwards themselves.

Honestly, I don’t think there are too many managers, at any capacity, at any level, that want their employees to be dumb and uneducated. Even managers of McDonalds try to hire the best and brightest kids with the highest quality of character possible. Even when you’re in high school, your grades are ridiculed by potential employers. Education shows intelligence, a willingness to learn, a capacity to learn, and that is what employers want. Educated people are often times more suitably fit to work in groups and to be personable. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a manager in America that specifically sought out dumber employees, Any level headed manager is typically going to take the most educated individual for any job, whatever it may be. Why would anyone as a business person want anything else? That person will take less time to train, will learn faster, have a higher capacity for growth, and will be more productive. In other words, the more educated people are at any level, the more money they will make for the rich. So rich people want the underclasses to be educated as well.

I think that’s a great misunderstanding of conservatism and why conservatives in general are pushing so hard for school voucher programs. I hate to bring it into this, but it goes back the root of everything. Liberals and conservatives all want the best for everyone, it’s just a matter of how we go about achieving that goal. My goal to all these problems cited in the essay, is to open the floor so everyone can have the opportunity to an equal education at a young age. The author complains about who goes into what schools, and I agree, at a very young age the rich segregate themselves financially from the rest of us by sending their kids to elite rich kid schools. A school voucher program closes that gap tremendously, and would put outside pressure on the public school system to reform itself. It may not make everyone super rich, but it definitely would open the door for children to jump up a class or two and escape our atrocious public school system. It’d give them a fighting chance at a real life at the very least.




At least FDR and Kennedy never tried to pretend they were one of the regular folk. FDR was thoroughly above them in every way, and he made it no secret that he felt that way, but there is almost no politician in the history of our country who did more to give opportunity to the poor, especially the poor whites, than he did. – David

You cannot have your cake and eat too. You can’t laude a man for creating a program, through liberal means, that has left thirty million people dependent on the government to make ends meet in a free infinitely opportunistic society, and then say that education will provide these tools with the ability to “rise up.” Rise up against what? WHAT! What on Gods green earth are people in America supposed uprise against?

Liberal elites in this country, going all the way back to FDR, are not at all about representing poor people or even educating them. You do not provide opportunities to the poor by giving them handouts. If liberals indeed stood up for these people, then programs like our social welfare program wouldn’t exist, they would have been desolved decades ago, and liberals wouldn’t have led our school system into the fucking gutter. Think about this. If liberals are really for offering up opportunity to the poor, then why would they forward the growth of social welfare? It baffles me really. Why would liberal politicians who favor big government want to educate people? That’s an oxymoron, because any educated Joe Schmoe realizes that a life of independence is far more fulfilling and meaningful than a life dependent upon a government body. Now ponder Mr. Kennedy’s NCLB legislation for a moment. If education is the key, and if it’d give the poor the tools to rise up, then why on God’s green earth are liberals so enconsed in keeping people in this country dependent on them? If education is the key, then how come it is liberals that refuse to allow the Thrift Savings Plan to be opened up to the general public? If education is the key, then why do liberals tout Social Security the way they do? Liberal elites don’t even cloud their belief that the poor shouldn’t be educated. Liberals want the power. The power over their lives. Keep them in their holes. Make the poor believe that the only way to live is through them. Here, we’ll give you food stamps for food, here is a welfare check, oh, and we’ll even take care of you when you retire.

The conservative elite in this country crassly caters to the lowest animal instinct in the uneducated in order to win their political support, but actually works in a concerted effort to keep these people right where they are in their underclass status, because it benefits the elite to do that.

I’m sorry, but this is far from truth. Liberals are the ones praying on the uneducated and catering to their lowest animal instinct: laziness.

“George Bush is gonna cut SOCIAL SECURITY!” “The Republican governor is try and cut your welfare check.” “Those conservative’s are gonna try and take away your abortion rights” “We’ll give you a BIGGER prescription drug plan.” “Those Republican’s are gonna cut medicare.”

How do those attitudes foster education?

How do the main governing facets of liberalism in America allow people to progress?

They don’t. FDR did nothing more than put a band aid on a sucking chest wound. He took away the necessity for people to learn on their own. People would be so much further ahead of the government stopped insisting on running the poor folks lives. People would be forced to find out the best way to run their own life. People would be forced to learn about how to retire financially sound. How to maintain finances. Even how to maintain families.

The government was never set up to be a fucking babysitter. And FDR set the tone to turn Uncle Sam into the lower classes baby sitter. Liberals gobble that shit up, they package it into a neat sellable carton, and the poor just gobble it up. Every word, and without thinking about it for just a moment. Ya know why? Because they’re uneducated and their political leaders keep them that way. Liberal politicians play into people’s emotions and their laziness. They scare people into voting for them, when the poor are too uneducated to for one moment, to take a look around, and realize that the left has done nothing for them. Not a fucking thing.

Educating the poor, David, would not have the effect that you desire. For if these people were to sit back and educate themselves, they would reject the people that are holding them down right now. Those people aren’t the Bush’s of the world, those are the Chuck Schumers, the Ted Kennedy’s, the Al Sharpton’s and Detroit City mayors that will be risen up against. And the people like you, who claim there is inevitably no hope for them because your view of the system insists upon society, the necessity for poor people. If these people became educated, and free thinking, the would throw the bullshit flag on almost everything their political leaders say, because none of it makes any sense. And much of what the Republicans say for that matter as well.

So you admit that you're there because you like to kill people?


I think you're missing the point I was making. I agree that most people of all political stripes want improved education so they can improve THEIR lives. The question is about those elites (liberal and conservative) who already HAVE the best education, and whether and wherefore they wish to improve educational opportunities for OTHERS. Because they are the ones with the power to make the changes necessary, and even though polls consistntly say that education is a top priority for the vast majority of Americans, nothing ever seems to get done to change the system. I posit that it is not in the elites' interest to do so, and that both sides are at the least being foolish, and in some cases being disingenuous or deceitful in their claims about their educational goals.


I'm not trying to say that education is useless or that poor people are going to be poor. What I'm saying is that SOMEBODY is going to be poor, relative to the rich. That is the dynamism that makes capitalism work, the desire to improve one's situation. And the people who are going to be poor are going to be those with the LEAST education. If you raise the minimum standard, you will merely end up with better educated poor people, not NO poor people.

It's all relative. Yes, poor people in America would look like the ruling elite in Djibouti, but that doesn't make them the upper class in America. We're talking about things in terms of class, and class is relative. You're making me sound like the Reaganite and you like the Commie here. If everyone were on equal economic footing, it wouldn't last. The stronger/smarter/more driven would succeed and the others would fall behind.


So you would tell them a fairy tale about the "American Dream" and how it actually belongs to them? I thought that was the job of liberals to tell people fairy tales about rising above their poverty. And I'm not saying that poor people are destined to be poor. I'm saying that uneducated people are destined to be poor. Even a poor kid from the sticks (or the ghetto) can be the valedictorian in his class and get a college scholarship and excell in college as well and get a good job and advance. It may take a couple of genrations to rise to the top socially, but it can be done, however difficult it may be.

The issue is that the schools in the poor areas don't give kids there an equal opportunity because the quality of education is just inferior to those schools in richer areas. Even the valedictorian will be less well equipped for college than a kid in the middle of his class from a school in a rich suburb. This is because the elite refuse to share any more of their wealth, and therefore the quality of their schools, with the poor in the cities or the country. And yet, I remember QUITE CLEARLY that you don't believe they you don't believe that those in the suburbs should have to share with those in the cities, and don't try to deny or it or I'll search for that thread where I called you a heartless bastard.

I think we have to tell people the truth. If you're born poor and into a family that has never been well-educated, then the cards are stacked against you. If you excell RELATIVE TO THOSE AROUND YOU, you can rise in society, but if you simply get by relative to those people, you will remain in poverty. This of course isn't fair, because a rich person is able to just get by relative to his social strata and manage to stay quite comfortabe in life. But that's just the fucking truth, and yeah, deal with it.

What you're suggesting is the disingenuousness that I claim the conservative elite feed to the rural poor. They tell them that they can live the American Dream, if only they work hard enough (for the elite, BTW). Well, that's bullshit. Hard work will only get you so far. If you're of average intelligence, and come from no money, hard work might get you to a position of managing those people of similar class who don't work quite as hard, but it is NEVER going to make you an OWNER. As Chris Rock said, there's a difference between being RICH and being WEALTHY. Shaq is RICH. The guy who signs his check is WEALTHY. And it takes generations to create wealth, not just hard work and a dream.


It seems our major difference in opinion is about whether there HAS TO BE an upper and lower class in our society. I think if you take a real honest look at America, and the rest of the world, you'll see that what makes America's economy strong and vital, in comparison to Europe for example, is the diversity of wealth. Not just RICH and POOR, but every level in between. The thing is, you can't just ELIMINATE the poor. What fuels the poor is the desire to be middle class. What fuels the middle classes, especially the working class (aka lower middle class) is the FEAR that they may become poor. The upper middle class are fueled by the desire to become wealthy, and the wealthy just need to sit back and not completely fuck away their wealth and they can rest comfortably on the work of others for generations to come.

Point is, the wealthy owners feed the poor a bullshit line about the ability to rise up. Liberal elite feed them bullshit about education, knowing full well that education alone will not help if EVRYONE has the same education. You only rise above if you are BETTER THAN YOUR PEERS. Conservative elite feed them bullshit about hard work, knowing full well that hard work can only ever take you so far, but hell, the harder people work, the better it is for the elite!


I'm trying to figure out exactly how to say this, but I think you've bought the party line. There's a difference between befriending a manager who can teach you things and help you succeed, and aligning one's political interests with the wealthy business elite. You will never even meet one of the wealthy business elite in your lifetime, much less be in a position to cozy up to them where they mentor you and help you become like them. The managers you are talking about are the ones I was referring to before who are the "hard workers" and have risen as far as they are ever going to have the opportunity to rise. Yes, they may make twice what their peers do, but the owners make 100 times what the workers do, and you're not going to rise up to that level by merely learning a few tricks from your boss.


Like I said, you, whether you call yourself "conservative" or not, are in no position to decide whether people will stay right where they are in poverty or not. The elite act upon "conservatives" like you, not take orders from you.


The only motivation TO help educate the lower classes is so that they have the skills to perform the technological work that the elite need them to perform in this day and age. Otherwise the elite wouldn't give two shits about the poor being illiterate. The elite are only intersted in educating enough to keep their businesses competitive (as far as they can see). They certainly have no interest in educating poor people about things that cannot be applied to their careers. What would be the motivation? Philathropy? Altruism? Gimme a break.


The wealthy will get wealthier if their businesses succeed and become more productive and less costly. Period. If that means that the workers need to be educated to do that, they will do that. If the wealthy can do that WITHOUT educating the workers, you can be goddamned sure that they will not be spending money and resources to educate them.


Again, you're nickel-and-diming here. You're taling about "managers". I'm talking about OWNERS. From the perspective of an owner, a manager is simply a level 2 worker. That's it. The manager will never rise any higher. They won't become an executive, they won't become an owner.


It's all relative. You take the best qualified person for the job. That doesn't mean that the rich wantthe worker to have one iota more education than necessary to do the best job possible in his position.


I'll admit, I don't know as much as I should about school vouchers. Hey, if it works to raise the educational level for all people, I'm in favor of it.


I'm going to limit my discussion to education toady and not get into the whole subject of social programs in general.


Liberals may ENABLE laziness, but they certainly don't profit off of it the way that conservatives profit off of fear and ignorance, especially that which is spread by religious fundamentalists.


I can't argue with you much here, because that is the failing of liberalism. Liberal elite all too often talk down to the poor as if they are too stupid to run their own lives. Sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are. Liberals act like they know better how to run people's live than the people themselves. Often they are wrong, and that is the fodder for conservative populists. Sometimes they are right, and that is the stuff of the liberal victories that they'll never let you forget about (such as the civil rights movement).

I think the difference between the right and left at this base level is what happens to the lowest of the low. To employ your metaphor of "putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound", the arch-conservatives would just let the guy die in order to teach those with lesser wounds to scramble so they don't die. Liberals, not beleiving that war is a metaphor for human society and life in general, try to at least keep the guy alive, even if he becomes attached to a machine for the rest of his life. You know, like Terri Schiavo. Oh, wait, who's the right-to-life party again, I'm confused?

FDR's bandaid was enough to stop our country from succumbing to either Communism or Fascism for long enough to get the ELITE back on their feet after fucking away their wealth on all kinds of risky pyramid schemes in the 20's (that were tacitly approved of by 12 years of conservative governments, BTW). I think that the elite have used the social security system as a crutch just as much as the poor, since it enables them toss workers aside when technology makes their jobs obsolete, without any fear of social revolution. Not having to have a social security system would be great in theory, but the "sink-or-swim" method of reform that conservatives propose, THAT is inhuman, sir.


I'll take my chances on who gets more "bullshit" points when the poor get a real education. Religious conservatives will be the first people voted off the island, I can guarantee that. After that, I couldn't care less, I'll be satisfied.

I watch this Chris Rock HBO special recently. I agree with most of what he said, except Oprah, she is definatly wealthy. Once you make to billionaire status I think it's safe to say your wealthy.

I think we are fundamentally looking at this through two different scopes. I think it is important to realize that the American Dream is different to every person in America. To some people, the American dream is to become the President, or a CEO. To some people, it’s just to escape a life of welfare that their own parents lived. It’s all relative. I’m not trying to sell an American dream where people all become CEO’s.



No, that’s not what I am suggesting. That’s because the American Dream is all relative. You’re right, telling people than can all be super rich is disingenuous and I’d never do that. And you are right, that hardwork will only get 98% of American’s so far, and that the incredible vast majority of us won’t be stinkin’ filthy rich. But there aren’t too many people with goals that lofty. I’d say that most people when they reach their mid-late teens would be simply satisfied to end up in a better state than their parents. And I think most parents would be proud of their children if they ended up further ahead in life than them.

Further more, I'd say the American Dream to most immigrants wasn't to become filthy rich, but to provide a foundation for their offspring to live a better life than their own.

My goal in life was never anything that lofty. My goal was to get into the Rochester Institute of Technology. To get scholarships to finance my education. To attain my degree, and to eventually ascend into the upper class of America. My goal was to be making six figures by the time I retired. $100,000 a year. An improvement from my parents. Nothing lofty.

And that’s what the American Dream is to most people. And I think that those types of modest improvements in life are what should always be encouraged. Which was why I was nickle and diming.

Now let’s get to some quotes:



I drink babies blood every day before I go to work and mercilessly slaughter the helplessly poor everyday. See Malice, I can laugh at myself.



In this regard I think you need to examine the political parties. My set is pushing all over the place for a change to the system. It is the left that continues to advocate the status quo and oppose change. Largely due to the fact that leftist teachers unions are one of their largest constituents and one of the biggest PAC's in the country.





Yeah, you’re right, and I agree. There will and rightfully should be poor people relative to the rich. And you’re right that that is why it works. I disagree that if you educate the better, you’ll just end up with educated poor people. I think if you educated poor people you would see far more entrepenuerism and creativity out of people from that set. And I really wasn’t contrasting America and Djibouti either. Educating the lower class more would hasten their social advance and their lot in life. If they remained poor compaired to the rich, so be it. What I am about is general improvement for all people in some capacity.



I did say that. And I do still believe that. I don’t think that the rich in the suburbs are indebted to share their achievements with those in the cities. You can go back and look at that thread, and I stated my reasoning for it. It was because I don’t think we should help people unless they are willing to help themselves.

I must say though, I believe that if there was one area where they should share their wealth, it would be in education, because education is an investment for everyone. However! I believe that school vouchers would be the best way to achieve this anyway.



Okay, but you need to look at these people in the right light. You cannot deamonize rich people just because they are rich. Many of them attained their wealth through legitimate means and hard work. Today, many of the poor are too quick to judge. It brings them down. Tell them the truth, that's fine, but motivate them at the same time to at least try and improve upon their lives.



I've sat down and talked with very rich men from Xerox and Delphi. I've met with Robert Yates. All it takes is a little will to meet and cozy up to them.



This is an oxymoron. On one hand you say they want their employees to be educated enough to keep their businesses competitive. Then you say they don't care about their education. I would reckon that Spacely Sprockets would be a far better company full of people who studied philanthropy and altruism, than a company of people who simply knew how to do their jobs. Again, managers will always look for the more educated guy for the job. I gaurantee you that if two men had the same credentials and personalities, but that one had extra college classes...say a years worth, that the guy with more education gets the job. A lot of businesses out there today encourage further education and will even pay for people to go to college while working. Not just to learn necessary technical classes either.



I'd reckon that most executives started off in life as managers.





See...

I just don't think he'd die.



If it was enough to stop all that. Then the programs should have ended once the waters cleared. Those 20's guys aren't really my style of conservatives ya know.



I don't think too many would sink. And I believe that those that did, would be supported by their family and friends. Such a situation would undoubtedly create a stronger society.

Everybody is hungry in Djibouti, but on the other hand, nobody is dying either...and with good reason.

LW,

I think we're 90% in agreement here. You're absolutely right that the "American Dream" means different thigns to different people, but mostly it means improving one's lot in life. I'll just pick out a few points:


That could very well be. I'd hope that would be the result. My experience is that the most entrepreneurial people are people who are born with, or who learn through life experience, the skills necessary to be shrewd at business. Few of them learned their skills from schooling.

Well, while it's true that human ingenuity does create wealth to some extent, there are only finite resources on the other hand, and as long as the game is fixed so that those resources tend to slide towards those who already have resources, the general improvement of the lower classes will be minimal. I think we need to tilt the playing field a bit towards the lower classes, whether that means to create an "even" playing field (which I do not believe currently exists), or if you believe that the even playing field currently does exist (as most conservatives tend to think), then to tilt the field a bit towards the poor in order to "handicap" th game somewhat. It's really just a question of whether you think the game "capitalism" is inherently fair or not. Us on the left tend to think it's a good game, but it tends to produce the same winners every year. Imagine if the Super Bowl champions also got he first pick in next year's draft. That's kinda what I see it as.


OK. Lets start with education redistribution then. I also think it is the most important and equitable way to share the wealth.


It's a delicate balance between truth and motivation, isn't it? It's what makes a great coach, IMO. Too bad our current coach is a former cheerleader.


I reckon that most managers started as workers. I reckon that most executives started out in business school and never were workers or managers.